9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Misconduct by a Chartered Accountant in certifying incorrect financial figures. Analysis: The judgment is a reference under Section 21(5) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, concerning the misconduct of a Chartered Accountant in certifying inaccurate financial figures. The respondent had certified the F.O.B. value of exports incorrectly, leading to a discrepancy between the certified value and the actual value. The Disciplinary Committee found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct under clauses (6) and (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Council recommended reprimand for the respondent. The key argument presented by the Institute was that the respondent failed to exercise the necessary care and caution required in his professional duties, resulting in professional misconduct. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the error was a typographical mistake promptly rectified by informing the concerned party. The respondent claimed that the mistake was made in good faith and did not amount to gross negligence. The judgment delves into the provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, along with clauses (6) and (7) of Part-I of the Second Schedule, defining professional misconduct. The court analyzed the concept of negligence in professional conduct, emphasizing the importance of honesty, diligence, and reasonable care in the duties of a Chartered Accountant. It was highlighted that negligence must involve moral culpability and not just errors in judgment. The duty to verify the accuracy of certified figures was emphasized as fundamental to the profession. The court referred to legal precedents to underscore the standard of skill, care, and caution expected from professionals in their respective fields. The judgment cited cases related to professional misconduct in law and medical professions to emphasize the significance of upholding professional standards and acting in utmost good faith. Ultimately, the court acknowledged that while the respondent did not exercise due care and caution, his actions were deemed bona fide as he promptly rectified the error upon discovery. The respondent's proactive approach in acknowledging and rectifying the mistake was considered, leading the court to conclude that a word of caution to be more careful sufficed, instead of reprimand as recommended by the Council. The case was closed accordingly.
|
